International Negotiation
A Journal of Theory and Practice
Vol. 16, No. 3
2011
This issue
Culture and Negotiation
Guest Editors:
Rajesh Kumar, University of Nottingham Business School
and
Anne Marie Bülow, Copenhagen Business School
Culture and Negotiation
Anne Marie Bülow and Rajesh Kumar
The literature on cross-cultural negotiation has expanded considerably over the past few
decade, but the findings are often ambiguous and sometimes even contradictory. This
introduction highlights the critical areas where objections are commonly raised about the
relevance of national culture, the applicability of typologies that treat cultures as static,
and the problem of ambiguous terminology. It may not be surprising that studies
contradict each other given the ambiguity of the national cultural construct and variations
in the context of the negotiating situations that are studied. The articles in this volume
contribute to deepening our understanding about cross-cultural negotiation processes.
Descriptive Norms as Carriers of Culture in Negotiation
Michele J. Gelfand, Janetta Lun, Sarah Lyons and Garriy Shteynberg
Research on culture and negotiation is critical for expanding theories of negotiation
beyond Western cultures and for helping people to manage their interdependence in a
world of increasing global threats and opportunities. Despite progress of understanding
cultural influences on negotiation, research is limited in that it portrays a static and
decontextualized view of culture and ignores cultural dynamics. The almost exclusive
focus on main effects of culture in negotiation has its roots in a subjectivist approach to
culture which has prioritized the study of values, or trans-situational goals. In this article,
we discuss the descriptive norms approach to culture and its promise for the study of
culture and negotiation. A descriptive norms approach highlights the dynamics of culture
in negotiation (i.e., the conditions under which culture effects become amplified, reduced,
or even reversed), it identifies new empirical mediating mechanisms for cultural effects,
and it sheds new light into understanding cultural competence in intercultural
negotiations.
Relational Construal in Negotiation: Propositions and Examples from Latin and
Anglo Cultures
Jimena Y. Ramirez-Marin and Jeanne M. Brett
In certain cultures, relationships are the reason for negotiation. In this article, we offer a
rationale regarding why relationships have more or less salience across cultures. We
present psychological, economic and sociological factors that explain the reasons for
negotiating relationally. Propositions are made as to how cultural construal about
relationships influences offers, targets and limits, negotiation strategy and, ultimately,
economic and relational outcomes. Our major explanatory construct is new: cultural
consensus about relationships. This construct is grounded in well developed theory of self
construal and new empirical research showing the utility of measures of cultural
consensus in explaining cultural differences in behavior. With this theoretical
contribution, we join the group of scholars who are advocating that more attention should
be paid to negotiators’ subjective evaluations of the social and emotional consequences of
negotiation.
Cultural Differences in the Function and Meaning of Apologies
William W. Maddux, Peter H. Kim, Tetsushi Okumura and Jeanne M. Brett
One of the most effective means for re-establishing trust in negotiations and disputes is by
making an apology. However, the function and meaning of an apology (and thus its
effectiveness for negotiators) may differ across cultures. We hypothesized that people from an
individual-agency culture (such as the United States) understand apologies as analytic
mechanisms for assigning blame and re-establishing personal credibility. In contrast, apologies
in collective-agency cultures (such as Japan) are understood to be general expressions of
remorse rather than a means to assign culpability. A survey of Japanese and Americans found
that, compared to Americans, Japanese apologized more often and were more likely to
apologize for actions in which they were not involved; on the other hand, Americans were
more likely than Japanese to equate apologizing with personal blame. A subsequent
experimental study showed that these cultural differences in the function and meaning of
apologies have implications for trust repair in disputes: apologies for integrity violations led to
greater trust repair for Japanese than for Americans, but apologies for competence violations
were somewhat more effective for Americans than Japanese. Implications for theory and
practice are discussed.
The Influence of Cultural Activity Types on Buyer-Seller Negotiations: A Game
Theoretical Framework for Intercultural Negotiations
Ursula F. Ott
This article uses an intercultural bargaining framework to analyze
cooperation and conflict between buyers and sellers in intercultural
negotiations. On the basis of game theoretical reasoning, culturally
embedded bargaining patterns are transformed into culturally determined
strategies in intercultural negotiations. The cultural differences of the players
can be seen in the initial offer, the strategic approach, the valuation of time,
the frequency of rejection and the objectives of the negotiation. In order to
provide prescriptions for cross-cultural bargaining, the clash of cultures is
dealt with in nine scenarios to show potential conflicts and cooperation
between the players.
The Display of “Dominant” Nonverbal Cues in Negotiation: The Role of Culture
and Gender
Zhaleh Semnani-Azad and Wendi L. Adair
The current study extends prior negotiation research on culture and verbal behavior by
investigating the display of nonverbal behaviors associated with dominance by male and
female Canadian and Chinese negotiators. We draw from existing literature on culture,
gender, communication, and display rules to predict both culture and gender variation in
negotiators’ display of three nonverbal behaviors typically associated with dominance:
relaxed posture, use of space, and facial display of negative emotion. Participants
engaged in a dyadic transactional negotiation simulation which we videotaped and coded
for nonverbal expression. Our findings indicated that male Canadian negotiators
engaged in more relaxed postures and displayed more negative emotion, while male
Chinese negotiators occupied more space at the negotiation table. In addition, use of
space and negative emotion partially mediated the relationship between culture and joint
gains, as well as satisfaction with negotiation process. We discuss contributions to crosscultural negotiation literature, implications for cross-cultural negotiation challenges, as
well as future studies to address cultural variation in the interpretation of nonverbal cues.
The Interplay between Culturally- and Situationally-based Mental Models
of Intercultural Dispute Resolution: West meets Middle East
Catherine H. Tinsley, Nazli M. Turan, Soroush Aslani and Laurie R. Weingart
When involved in disputes, people’s stereotypes about one another and the situation can
influence their attributions of motives and effectiveness at resolving the dispute.
Stereotypes may be of particular concern when disputing parties have little knowledge
about the individual across the table. In this study, we examined how respondents from
different cultures evaluated the economic and relational goals of two disputing merchants
– one from the West and the other from the Middle East. We tested the extent to which
respondents’ expectations of the targets’ goals were driven by: 1) cultural information
about each disputant (whether the merchant-disputant comes from the West or from the
Middle East) and 2) the respondent’s own culturally-based mental model for approaches
to resolving work-related disputes. We found very little evidence of cultural stereotyping
in that respondents views of the Target Merchants’ goals were largely independent of the
said culture of the Target Merchant. We did however find strong evidence that
respondents from the United States, Turkey and Qatar hold different mental models about
the goals a party has when resolving a work-related dispute. In particular, US
respondents had a more variable-sum orientation than the other cultural groups,
especially Qataris, whose mental model evidenced a fixed pie assumption regarding
economic and relational goals. For example, Qataris and Turks viewed a goal of
Maximizing one’s Own Gain as impeding a goal of Maximizing the Other Party’s Gain.
Similarly, Qataris viewed Defending Honor as incompatible to the goals of Relationship
Building and Giving Face, whereas Americans and Turks did not hold such a view. These
differences, based on the country of the respondent, are discussed in detail.
Culture and International Alliance Negotiations: A Sensemaking Perspective
Rajesh Kumar and Gerardo Patriotta
International alliance negotiations are now a pervasive feature of the contemporary global
economy. As the alliancing firms cross national boundaries to forge cooperative
partnerships they face the inevitable necessity of bridging the cultural divide to ensure
successful negotiation. Existing research has focused primarily on the impact of national
cultural differences in shaping negotiating strategies and ensuing outcomes. Less
attention has been paid to how negotiators from different cultures understand and manage
the inherent ambiguity of the negotiating process. We employ the theoretical lens of
sensemaking to understand how negotiators embedded in different cultures manage
simultaneously the task and cultural related ambiguity that they are confronted with. This
perspective suggests the critical role that ‘tertius iungens’ (the ‘third who joins’) plays in
facilitating the negotiation process. The ‘tertius iungens’ represents a form of
intermediation that acts as a catalyst in the negotiation process. We propose three
alternative types of intermediation, namely, cognitive, affective, and holistic and provide
illustrative examples of these types of intermediation. We conclude by highlighting the
theoretical and managerial significance of our framework and by suggesting future
directions for research.